Wwad??

Annatar · Post by **Annatar** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:25 pm

I know that everyone is really to blame here for this war. But there is no denying that Dubya has had one of the major roles in this war with Iraq or as he calls it the "axis of evil"....Anyway I have a few questions for everyone:
What would Al do? How do you think that Al Gore would have handled WTC? And do you think that he would have started a war with Iraq?

For our American friends only:
If all you voters out there knew that this would happen before you cast your ballot, would you have voted differently?

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:49 pm

Nope, I choose the lesser of two evils and stick to my decision.

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:55 pm

I feel fine about my decision and glad a republicans in office during war hehe

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:10 pm

I can not tell you the number of times I have thanked the stars that it was not Gore holding the reigns on 9/11. Of those who ran, we have the best the country had to offer. For the ones who think they could have done a better job, I ask, why did you not run?. It is a job of service, few who are capable, are willing to make the sacrifices it takes. It is not a job many of the best and brightest want, and the ones that do, IMHO, for the most part do it out of a love for their country.

Having said that. If it had been Gore in office, I would stand behind him as my president. I would not agree with the majority of his policies, and I do not agree with many of GW Bush's , but he is the President. In times of war, I would even have supported Clinton....at least until election time...

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:13 pm

but clinton was so gooood for saturday night live.... i mean

FUNNY

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:37 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
For the ones who think they could have done a better job, I ask, why did you not run?

I almost wrote my name in.

(Seriously)

The main reason I did not, I knew my chance was null.

In 1988 I didn't vote.

In 1992 I voted Perot. (Wasted my vote (IMHO) but I was all for change.

In 1996 I vote for Dole. Still looking for a change..

In 2000 I voted for Bush. Still looking for a change..

In 2004 I have no idea. But I will be looking for a change...

In 2008 I have not idea. Most likely looking for a change...

(I could continue...mainly because the type I'm looking for is in history past.... the road the world and the US is on, my type doesn't exist anymore.)

KidD01 · Post by **KidD01** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:47 pm

It is possible Hillary Clinton will try her luck on presidency sooner or later. Will she adapt Clintonian style ? We'll see

@Weasel : you vote for Perot ? that explains your smilie avatar

BTW did you ever check your email ?

fable · Post by **fable** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:45 pm

I think Gore, McCain, Buchanan nor Nader would have entered a war in Iraq, for various reasons; but primarily because none of them features such a strong, single-minded interest in fossil fuels. Remember, 41 of the first- and second-rank executives in the Bush White House, State and Defense Departments originated in top-paying jobs in major oil companies: more than all the previous presidents, combined. This concentration skews everything. We didn't simply get a president. On some issues, at least, we got an oil corporation to run things, IMO.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:19 pm

Originally posted by Weasel
I almost wrote my name in. (Seriously)

(I could continue...mainly because the type I'm looking for is in history past.... the road the world and the US is on, my type doesn't exist anymore.)

LOL....I would have voted for you Weasel

Seriously, I agree, The strong decisive male has become an endangered species in America. He is not 'politically correct" He is despised by the weak and feared by the masses. The kind of strength it would take to be a truly great president frightens the hell out of most of the rest of the world.The image of strength=bully is the misconception which breeds ineffectiveness. The image of strong=hero, one which I hold dear has been supplanted with this propaganda. Women too can be strong. Unfortunately, for the most part, women in politics tend to gravitate toward the liberal side of government, and the ones who are conservative, confuse religion with politics. I would not care if the person were male or female..My ideal president would be strong, firm in their convictions, but open to communication. Not feel pressured by world opinion, but always put America's interests first. Be fiscally conservative, and a capitalist who promotes the growth and development of the small businessman, realizing the need for checks and balances on large multi-national corporations. They would be pro-military, and pro-education. They wouldn't be trying to legislate morality. Spiritual issues are the domain of the clergy, not the whitehouse, but they would be supportive of public expression of faith, in all forms. Abortion would be a non-issue....as would gay rights, minority-rights, workers-rights, women's-rights. There would be no such thing as a special interest group. The concerns would be infrastructure, defense, education. The things which facilitate a people who acting in freedom, are capable of living their lives.A president who OPPOSES big brotherism !!!!

*sigh*...oh, well, it is my dream....

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:33 pm

Originally posted by Scayde
*sigh*...oh, well, it is my dream....

Looks like we dream together, sweetheart.

*kiss*

Hmmm....my vote would not have changed in the slightest. I am also glad that Al Gore was not the Chief Executive at the time of 9/11, and especially now, when clear vision and firm resolve is called for. Our President was indeed the best the nation was offering.

With that said...the last truly great President is dying.

He was (and still is) my hero, and I'll never forget him. His was a great life, and a great presidency...

VoodooDali · Post by **VoodooDali** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:37 pm

Reading everyone's replies, esp. Weasel's and Scayde's --
Doesn't it seem like both parties are out of touch?
The republicans are so tied to the religious right, that they have to go along with their whole agenda (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.)
The democrats have spent so much time trying to look like the republicans that to me they've ceased to really stand for anything at all. I blame the dem's most of all for the lack of dialogue in the country about the war. I mean, not a single one of them had the balls to bring it up for debate in congress! Isn't that astounding? Anyway, they don't seem to represent me anymore.

What would make me run out and vote for someone:
#1: - Offers a solution for the uninsured. I am 40 years old, own my own business, make over $50k/year, pay tons of taxes, and I'm one of 40 million Americans who cannot afford healthcare. One third of that 40 million earn over $50k. I would vote for anyone who offered one of the two following solutions: a)allow small businesses to band together under a national federation to buy health insurance at group rates; or b)allow a 100% tax deduction for self-insurance. Please note I am not looking for handout's, but I cannot afford to pay the $800/month premiums for my husband and myself.

Other things I'd like:
Strong pro-civil liberties stance
No strong ties with corporate interests
A concern for the environment and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels

RandomThug · Post by **RandomThug** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:40 pm

LLllllleagalize IT

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:44 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali
I would vote for anyone who offered one of the two following solutions: a)allow small businesses to band together under a national federation to buy health insurance at group rates; or b)allow a 100% tax deduction for self-insurance.

Those are some rather interesting ideas, Voo. The first might be accomplished privately, but the second is very intriguing. The present system of taxation is oppressive enough as it is, IMO...empowering taxpayers is always a great idea.

Just one problem: the growing and gluttonous Federal Government would surely try to "offset" the "loss of revenue" represented by such a tax cut somehow...

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:49 pm

Originally posted by VoodooDali

Please note I am not looking for handout's, but I cannot afford to pay the $800/month premiums for my husband and myself.

The bane of the self employed.

Sadly I only see the situation getting worst.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:57 pm

Originally posted by Chanak
Looks like we dream together, sweetheart. *kiss*

*kiss*

Originally posted by VoodooDali
Reading everyone's replies, esp. Weasel's and Scayde's --
Doesn't it seem like both parties are out of touch?
The republicans are so tied to the religious right, that they have to go along with their whole agenda (pro-life, anti-gay, etc.)
The democrats have spent so much time trying to look like the republicans that to me they've ceased to really stand for anything at all. I blame the dem's most of all for the lack of dialogue in the country about the war. I mean, not a single one of them had the balls to bring it up for debate in congress! Isn't that astounding? Anyway, they don't seem to represent me anymore.

What would make me run out and vote for someone:
#1: - Offers a solution for the uninsured. I am 40 years old, own my own business, make over $50k/year, pay tons of taxes, and I'm one of 40 million Americans who cannot afford healthcare. One third of that 40 million earn over $50k. I would vote for anyone who offered one of the two following solutions: a)allow small businesses to band together under a national federation to buy health insurance at group rates; or b)allow a 100% tax deduction for self-insurance. Please note I am not looking for handout's, but I cannot afford to pay the $800/month premiums for my husband and myself.

Other things I'd like:
Strong pro-civil liberties stance
No strong ties with corporate interests
A concern for the environment and reducing our dependence on fossil fuels

Fantastic post Voo....yes they are...both parties have become pupets of their respective special intrest groups, and there is no way for the people to represent themselves a-la-cart, because the government is trying to micromanage our lives. All of the issues are divided up, and you only have two choices, both of which are a package deal.

BTW, I like your ideas about health care. KUDOS

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:06 am

*looks over all the previous posts*

Ok, I'll run for President

On topic....

Republicans and Democrats hand pick their candidates. Therefore, those candidates are the one that each party thinks represents their own party , not the whole of the American people. At the same time, I think most people in the U.S. could really care less about party affiliations if a candidate came along who stood on his convictions and listened to the American people before he listened to his own party.

Unfortunatly, unless you get the backing of either party, you can't compete as an independent. You don't have the money to mount a campaign on the scale the parties can, you don't have a set voting base that comes with the parties, and even if by some miricle you get into office, you will never be able to accomplish anything as you would be at odds with both parties in Congress. So we basically don't get to choose a President, we get to choose a governing political party. A man who knows that if he want's to even get the nomination for his own party come re-election time, he better not stray too far from their views, regardless of what the masses have to say on any given issue.

Sad, as I, like many people I know, don't consider myself a Republican OR a Democrat.

I want a middle of the road party.

Scayde · Post by **Scayde** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 2:42 am

Originally posted by Bloodstalker
*looks over all the previous posts*

Ok, I'll run for President

On topic....

Republicans and Democrats hand pick their candidates. Therefore, those candidates are the one that each party thinks represents their own party , not the whole of the American people. At the same time, I think most people in the U.S. could really care less about party affiliations if a candidate came along who stood on his convictions and listened to the American people before he listened to his own party.

Unfortunatly, unless you get the backing of either party, you can't compete as an independent. You don't have the money to mount a campaign on the scale the parties can, you don't have a set voting base that comes with the parties, and even if by some miricle you get into office, you will never be able to accomplish anything as you would be at odds with both parties in Congress. So we basically don't get to choose a President, we get to choose a governing political party. A man who knows that if he want's to even get the nomination for his own party come re-election time, he better not stray too far from their views, regardless of what the masses have to say on any given issue.

Sad, as I, like many people I know, don't consider myself a Republican OR a Democrat. I want a middle of the road party.

So very true......I think you and Weasel should run for office, put forth your platforms and lets see who wins. Then we will all pitch in and send the winner to Washington and launch a coup

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:30 am

Originally posted by Scayde
Unfortunately, for the most part, women in politics tend to gravitate toward the liberal side of government

What's wrong with being liberal?

I say, Nader for President!

Der-draigen · Post by **Der-draigen** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:44 am

Originally posted by Scayde
I can not tell you the number of times I have thanked the stars that it was not Gore holding the reigns on 9/11. Of those who ran, we have the best the country had to offer.

I agree. I still think Bush is the better choice of the two and so I'm glad I voted for him, even though I believe he made an error in resorting to military action so soon in this case. In fact, if he runs again I'll probably vote for him again. Bottom line is, every president is human and makes good decisions and bad decisions. For what it's worth, even though I disagree with the action taken, I do believe, from watching Bush throughout this crisis, that he honestly thinks he's doing the right thing and the best thing for the security of the nation. IMO that's still better than having ulterior motives and misleading the public about them.

I don't think we can automatically assume that Gore, just because he's a Democrat, wouldn't have taken military action, since Clinton bombed the snot out of...where was it, while the Lewinsky thing was going on? I can't remember. Anyway -- I have to say, at least I know (I think

) that Bush isn't using warfare to distract national attention from a personal scandal

But if Gore had been in office, and decided not to go to war -- the same people protesting now (might) be complaining that nothing was being done. *shakes head* People

Tybaltus · Post by **Tybaltus** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:29 am

Originally posted by Annatar

For our American friends only:
If all you voters out there knew that this would happen before you cast your ballot, would you have voted differently?

Well I was 17 when that election took place, there for I was 1 year short of voting.

But everyone in my family, hell, everyone in my school wanted Gore to win. The percentage at our school was an overwhelming 92% that wanted Gore to win.

When Bush won, the first words that came to my mouth towards my friends was "I guess whatever doesnt kill us will make us stronger". And rolled my eyes.

We silently agreed, though one of my friends was all ready to tear down the white house when Bush was elected.

We had no idea how right we were.

I dont know what Gore would have done in the situations. But I came to the agreement with my friends that Gore would have stagnated the nation, rather then send the nation back 100 years.

And this was all in the first month...once again, we were right, way before the fact.

After 9/11 I saw an SUV in traffic with all these bumper stickers like "Thank you Florida" and "Im so glad I voted for Bush". I wanted to tailgate that looney ass for miles, either that or just punch his face in. Heh...really...

Bush has done one remarkable jump in sending a nation down the crapper. Let me applaud him for that. He may not be the worst president in US history, there are a few that pop into mind...*cough*Johnson*cough*, but he's going to be right up there. He's like Lyndon Johnson, way too obsessed with war and finding conflicts...

Bush said all the right things about 9/11 but followed up with very little of it, and has taken his own little power trip.

Im sure Gore would have played it completely differently, which in all essence, would not be a bad thing. I dont care what different is, aslong as different isnt this.